"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the
rest of the article.

???

What you're saying is, you trust & believe & agree with people whom you
*know* are lying to you. That includes President Bush & Vice President
Cheney?

... But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on that link.
Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.


Sure. That would be true in almost all cases no matter who was President.
But it has very little to do with the current hoopla about Social
Security.

DSK

The "hoopla" is about money and the congress and it's ability to spend it.
Take 50 billion out of an already over inflated budget and there will be
SOME pressure to not spend some of that on other pet projects. Who does
Bush's proposal benefit, not the federal government because they (congress)
can't get their hands on it. So what if it's designed to provide a hedge
for those of us that are going to have their SS benefits cut by 27%.

What private individual holds 100% of their retirement money in treasury
bonds? Since you feel that they are such a good investment, what percentage
of your retirement is in bonds? Since I know from your responses that you
are a smart guy, I'd suspect that less than 20% and then only when you have
achieved most of your retirement goals.

Maybe I'm naive but I do believe in spreading my investments around in
different areas of the economy. If I had enough I'd be investing outside
the US as well. AND hiding some of my money so that in the eventuality that
the government gets greedy they can't find it (typically hidden money never
grows).

The point we should have been making is that only a fool or someone with a
hidden agenda would insist that ALL the funds were in T bills.